Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The representation in picture was adapted to the usual idea of ​​this thing. In fact, this representation is completely worthless.

 

i think so. The depression of the weapon is not necessary to fire horizontally over the ridge, It would be helpful if you can shoot at targets if these are located well below the ridge. However, it is never recommended to choose a static firing position on the ridge. Behind the ridge or in front of the ridge. Never on the ridge.

 

To prevent a misunderstanding. I think maximum depression is a desirable feature. But you can not expect too much.

 

The max. depression of the T-72 gunner sight TPD-K1 line of sight is -15 degrees. The gunner can "full programm" aiming in turret down position, then drive briefly forward, shoot and drive back. There is the problem rather the slow reverse.

Edited by Stefan Kotsch
Link to post
Share on other sites

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.

NVA?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can still move after adjusting the suspension. So position behind ridge, change suspension posture, crawl up, fire, roll back, return suspension to normal posture, be on your way to where ever,

From 0:49

 

From 0:20

 

Part of the design intention with he Type 74 was to make as small of a target as possible since it was figured that enough armor would not be possible to design while keeping the tank weight's light. So changing the suspension enables it to better reduce the amount of exposure when shooting over a ridge. Most tanks would have to expose full hull before able to shoot over the hill, the Type 74 would be better at limiting exposure to just the turret. With the Type 10, the Type 10s at the platoon level are networked with C4I, information is automatically updated, shared, and displayed on panels including enemy positions. So a Type 10 can knowingly expect an enemy tank at certain location before adjusting the suspension, rolling up above the ridge to only expose the turret for a moment's worth of time, fire a shot, and roll back behind ridge cover.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

The peculiarities of Japanese geography are well known to me. As far as the depression of armament is concerned, I think that is overrated. From my NVA practice I am not aware of any example where there was a significant disadvantage. That's why my question about nice theory and actual practice.

 

Then I must have been the unlucky bastard who ran into the cannon hitting the the stop on the turret roof on two occasions. Once in bergen, once in the Munster training areas. They were so perfect hole and hill respectively, but the incline was obviously too steep and we had to relocate and look for a new position to go hulldown in. With an adjustable suspension we could have compensated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really looking forward to getting my copy of David Lister's new book but as someone very interested in Japanese WW2 tanks, this new write-up as a preview has me excited!

 

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/mitsu-104/

 

Unfortunately, it smells fishy. Something interesting was likely found but something like faulty ally intelligence or Japanese deception but the excitement from finding something new is leading to conclusions and a narrative that has no basing.

 

For starters, the second paragraph in the link is as follows:

 

One of the few dead ends that the Japanese did encounter, however, was the multi-turreted tank, the Mitsu-104, which was most likely a development of the Type 97 Heavy tank, which was the one heavy tank the Japanese had that went into service.

 

The problem is that the Japanese have never had a heavy tank in service. The furthest developed heavy tank was the Type 95 which had some limited experimental or for show use. There is no mention of a Type 97 heavy tank in any of the dozens of Japanese tank books that I have or else where that I have gone exploring in. Not even in Japanese wiki. He continues to imply that a Type 97 heavy was built later in the article. If such a tank was made, it would most certainly get mentioned in Japanese materials. Imperial Japanese tanks generally get the "Type" designation upon more or less the completion of the prototype and testing. There is no mention anywhere of a heavy tank development program around the time period that "Type 97" would imply. 97 would be for imperial year 2597 or 1937. Same year for the medium tank, the Type 97 Chi-Ha. At this time, Japanese tank industry was not under such pressure like in 1944/45 so a heavy tank being developed and tested and entering service around 1937 should most definitely get recorded in various kinds of records in the 1937 period.

 

I'm also bothered by the article speaking in a very normalizing or familiarizing kind of tone with other mentioned heavy tank designs called "Ai-96" and "Ishi 108" coming in addition to "Mitsu 104". None of these names exists in Japanese materials nor does something that did exist under a different name could fit such descriptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...

The Belgians had quite a lot of these (55 I think), and they were for many years the pride of the army: having such a piece of high tech equipment for our rather small budget army (remember: less than 10 mil inhabitants then, and no oil ;-) ).

Edited by Inhapi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Belgian ones were German Gepard, this is Type 87. Kinda related, but IIRC turret has more to do with British Marksman than with Gepard.

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

Belgian ones were German Gepard, this is Type 87. Kinda related, but IIRC turret has more to do with British Marksman than with Gepard.

 

Not really. Only thing common to all three are the two Oerlikon 35mm KDA cannons. The placement of the RADARS is similar to the MArksman turret design, because the Gepard's arrangement was patented.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

The video takes interesting facts but just is then dressed up and has a lot of baseless narrative gap-filling conclusions. The interesting parts are of course the purchase of a tiger, as well as a panther. The cost of the tiger, the delegation by Oshima, plans to transport the tiger to Japan by submarine but it remaining in Europe are all points in a article in a 2008 Japanese book. So on those points both the video and the printed article line up.

 

The points that I think the speaker is just filling in the gaps or is echoing an accepted narrative floating around are how the Tiger fits into Japanese tank development.

 

At 3:05 he makes a point about Japanese tanks being small and under armed compared to American and British tanks in the Pacific. The greatest limitation to the Japanese was not technology but resources. Doesn't mean there weren't things to learn from German tanks, but larger medium tanks (Chi-Nu, Chi-To, and Chi-Ri) were already under development by the time the Tiger purchase was made (summer 1943). Another point is that heavy weight for a tank would have been ill-suited for Pacific island and deploying Tigers to islands probably was beyond regular military transport capability. Afterall, even American logistics wouldn't have been able to transport 55 ton tanks all over the place to a battle either. So interest in having a Tiger likely wasn't in response to ally tanks in the Pacific theater but rather interest was probably in having some Tigers for Manchuria.

 

Also probably worth considering is the timing of events. I'm not really sure when the first time the Japanese encountered M4s was. I'm pretty sure there were no M4s in the Guadalcanal campaign which went up to February 1943. M4s were at the Battle of Tarawa but that was November 1943, several months after the Tiger was already purchased. Probably never considered from the ally side of war history story telling was that towards the end of the Philippines campaign in 1942, Japan formed a special occasion unit made up of Type 97 Chi-Ha Shinhoto (47mm version), sent it to participate at the end of the Philippines campaign, and test fired its 47mm vs a captured M3 Stuart in which the 47mm penetrated it with relative ease, making the new Shinhoto model look pretty good. I think Japanese did face Matildas before Tarawa though. Maybe they faced some M4s in Burma in early or mid 1943, not so sure on all this history. At anyrate, Japanese were of course watching very closely the big battles taking place between the SU and Germany, and so would not have needed to encounter M4s before coming to realization that a bigger tanks would be needed, hence Chi-Nu, Chi-To, and Chi-Ri already in development by 1943.

 

Towards the end of the video, he seems to imply that the Tiger was inspiration for the bigger "heavy" tanks like Chi-Ri but like I said already, these tanks were already in development. Additionally these were medium tanks, not heavy tanks, made evident in the name. The "Chi" in Chi-Nu, Chi-To, and Chi-Ri is for "medium" and were called "medium tanks" in the Japanese documents in those days. Something else to consider is that much of the design elements of those tanks were Japanese anyway despite having purchased and studied the Tiger. Same Japanese suspension, diesel engines, no coaxial MG in mantlet, etc. And an idea that is also had been floated around is that boxy welded turret design found in the Chi-To and Chi-Ri was inspired from the boxy Panther turret. But such a Japanese boxy turret was already developed during the development of the "gun-tank" (concept similar to early Panzer IV) throughout 1940-1942, which resulted in the Type 2 Ho-I.

Edited by JasonJ
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Belgians had quite a lot of these (55 I think), and they were for many years the pride of the army: having such a piece of high tech equipment for our rather small budget army (remember: less than 10 mil inhabitants then, and no oil ;-) ).

 

Since giving up its Mistral MANPADS on 31st December 2017, the Belgian Armed Forces have no ground based anti aircraft weapons at all. A far cry from 1989. Even Eire has RBS-70.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah well those have adjustable suspension too, helps aim up faster for shooting at fast airstuff.

Or a close-up face shot at Godzilla--in case there is a vulnerable spot under the chin. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah well those have adjustable suspension too, helps aim up faster for shooting at fast airstuff.

 

Or a close-up face shot at Godzilla--in case there is a vulnerable spot under the chin. ;)

Spray a bunch of shots, one is bound to hit the mark. Bet Bard wished he had an autocannon instead of single shot of a black arrow :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ah well those have adjustable suspension too, helps aim up faster for shooting at fast airstuff.

Or a close-up face shot at Godzilla--in case there is a vulnerable spot under the chin. ;)

 

 

That would be a useful secondary capability, but it was actually designed to counter the likes of Battra, Megaguirus, Rodan and Mothra

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...